1. In pursuance to order No.18/DMB/PSA/2012 dated 20.09.2012, detenue, Showkat Ahmad Teli, has been taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under Section 8(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act as his activities were found to be prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order" so has been lodged in District Jail, Kupwara. By the instant petition quashment of the said order is sought on various grounds. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order of detention it is recorded that the District Magistrate was satisfied to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order". In the grounds of detention, it is recorded that the detenue has applied for release on bail in connection with case FIR No.92/2012 P/S Sopore and in case he is released, his activities will be very dangerous for overall safety/security of common citizens and society, he is inimical to peace and tranquility of the State. Then it is recorded that in case detenue will remain at large, he will effect peaceful atmosphere as "well as law and order situation" and "security of the State". Finally it has been concluded as under:- "It is manifest from factual position as at pre-paras that your activities are highly pre-judicial to the security of the State and to prevent/deter you from these unlawful activities and also due to inadequacy of statutory provision of law to prevent you from falling prey to mechanism of militants and their nefarious designs, you are hereby detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety act, 1978 and you have a right to represent against your detention if you choose so". 3. The District Magistrate has not been himself certain as to whether activities of the detenue are threat to the "maintenance of public order" or "security of the State" because in grounds of detention finally he has concluded that his activities are prejudicial to the "security of the State", therefore, he is required to be deterred from unlawful activities whereas in the order of detention he has recorded that his activities are prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order". The said position suggests that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention. The said position suggests that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention. In support, learned counsel has relied on the judgment captioned G.M. Shah v. State of J&K, reported in (1980) 1SCC132:2010 (6) JKJ SC-850. Para 9 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted: "As observed by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors. one has to imagine three concentric circles, in order to understand the meaning and import of the above expressions. 'Law and order' represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing "public order" and the smallest circle represents "security of State". It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of State. It is in view of the above distinction, the Act defines the expressions "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State" and "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" separately. An order of detention made either on the basis that the detaining authority is satisfied that the person against whom the order is being made is acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or on the basis that he is satisfied that such person is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but which is attempted to be supported by placing reliance on both the bases in the grounds furnished to the detent has to be held to be an illegal one vide decisions of this Court in Bhupal Chandra Ghosh v. Arif Ali & Ors. and Satya Brata Ghose v. Arif Ali & Ors. 4. Next learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the material forming base for the grounds of detention, such as dossier and other connecting documents as reflected in the order of detention, have not been supplied to the detenue, therefore, has been deprived of making an effective representation against the order of detention. The right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as such, is infringed. 5. The right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as such, is infringed. 5. Past history and activities of the detenue have been narrated in the grounds of detention but reference to the documents in the grounds of detention would suggest that it was imperative for the detaining authority to furnish copies of the documents so referred in the grounds of detention to the detenue. Infringement of such right to represent against the order of detention as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution would render the order of detention as illegal. 6. Right to liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can be negated in view of Article 22(3) (b) of the Constitution which is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. The said exception authorises the concerned author-ides to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person and such power shall be exercised in a manner which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. In short an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the preventive order but while doing so procedural safeguards are to be respected. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed do horse the law. In this connection it shall be quite relevant to quote paras 37 and 38 of the judgment rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case captioned Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and anr, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 : "37. As observed in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha vide SCC para 5:(SCC p.27) "5....The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard." As observed by Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath:(US p. 179) "...It is procedure that spells much of the. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath:(US p. 179) "...It is procedure that spells much of the. difference between rule of law and rule of whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards are the main assurances that there will be equal justice under law". 38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experience". 7. The next star ground, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as per grounds of detention the detenue has been arrested in connection with case FIR No.92/2012 P/S Sopore for commission of offence punishable under Section 7/25 Arms Act. When bail application has not been filed, how could detaining authority.record satisfaction that there is likelihood of release of the detenue on bail, supporting this contention relied on para 27 of the Rekha's case referred above. Para 27 of the judgment reads as under:- "27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grantbail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed". 8. In the instant case in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has categorically recorded that the detenue has already moved an application for bail and there is likelihood of his release when in fact no such bail application has been filed, therefore, to say there is likelihood of his release on bail is imaginary. 8. In the instant case in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has categorically recorded that the detenue has already moved an application for bail and there is likelihood of his release when in fact no such bail application has been filed, therefore, to say there is likelihood of his release on bail is imaginary. 9. In view of the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the order of detention impugned does not sustain. 10. For the afore-stated reasons, the order of detention impugned is quashed. Custody of the detenue shall be governed by the orders as shall be passed by the competent Court in connection with case FIR No.92/2012 P/S Sopore or in connection with any other case. 11. Disposed of as above. 12. Detention records, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.